Thanks for the input. Specifically, what position did I claim he held that he did not express? Quote me directly please. If you can't then please do not accuse me of dishonesty. ^_^
"Did you expect a crossover between Rabbids, who communicate only in screams, and Mario characters to have a rich and nuanced story? If so, I think the problems lied with your expectations."
Mostly boils down to this sentence. He did say that the story was boring and the plot/story was almost non-existant(or something to that effect), which IS a valid criticism. I mean, Paper Mario and Mario and Luigi RPGs have silent protagonists and they manage to have a much better story than this. Then you wrote that phrase, which really dosent have anything to do with what he said( again, you can expect a decent story out of a mario game) and that's where things gone downhill.
And you dont have to be defensive about it. I liked the game too. You just made an assumption, or in the best case, made a extreme claim that Alchemist was "dumb"( thats the sentiment I got from that sentence) for expecting more out of the story, because it had silent characters and the rabbids, something he never said, because again, its normal to expect a decent story out of a franchise that has a history of its spin offs having good plots, or at least decent ones.
I mean, the sequel is seemingly going with an original villain, which is a sign that the story will play a larger role. They even explicity said that the Sparks origin was a mystery and a central part of the story. So yeah, just because you have Rabbids and characters that dont talk dont mean you cant have a more elaborate plot.
In the end, I just think it was a misunderstanding between both of you. So no one is calling you of being dishonest(at least I am not), just that this whole discussion is more of a misunderstanding than anything else.
My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.